I reviewed the posts and there was one case of an insult. I have warned the person to edit the attack out and to refrain from such attacks. Unless I missed a post, which is possible, I only saw the one attack as the other cases were attacks on the truthfulness of the message. I would like for Josh and/or Sandra to take a look as well to be sure.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

There were actually multiple postings in that thread, from OhioSteve, Donnie and PhantomUK that I would consider to be personal attacks. I think we need to get people to avoid making statements that involve lots of use of the word "you" or people's names when responding to an argument.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable (I think) to say, "The claim that X = Y is wrong" or "The claim that X=Y is a lie." The second one is a lot more confrontational and is likely to be taken as such, which will most likely escalate to a flame fest.

It would not be acceptable to say, "You are a liar, X does not equal Y" or "You lie all the time, X does not equal Y." Other things like "you are pulling facts out of your ass" would also be a direct attack (even if they are ). It would be perfectly acceptable to say, "I disagree with your assertion because of X, Y and Z."

I would think these are common sense rules of personal interaction, but I've learned from this crowd that nothing can be taken for granted!

Because of the extensive nature of the attacks that I perceived in that thread, Wayne's actions seem appropriate, but we really do need to find better ways to get everyone to calm down with the personal attacks.

There were actually multiple postings in that thread, from OhioSteve, Donnie and PhantomUK that I would consider to be personal attacks. I think we need to get people to avoid making statements that involve lots of use of the word "you" or people's names when responding to an argument.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable (I think) to say, "The claim that X = Y is wrong" or "The claim that X=Y is a lie." The second one is a lot more confrontational and is likely to be taken as such, which will most likely escalate to a flame fest.

It would not be acceptable to say, "You are a liar, X does not equal Y" or "You lie all the time, X does not equal Y." Other things like "you are pulling facts out of your ass" would also be a direct attack (even if they are ). It would be perfectly acceptable to say, "I disagree with your assertion because of X, Y and Z."

I would think these are common sense rules of personal interaction, but I've learned from this crowd that nothing can be taken for granted!

Because of the extensive nature of the attacks that I perceived in that thread, Wayne's actions seem appropriate, but we really do need to find better ways to get everyone to calm down with the personal attacks.

-josh

It does not help matters when Don makes claims that I am on this board for all your play toy so to speak. I kept away for a few days and came back with low key posts and was of the opinion of giving this forum a fair go without the pissing around. I need to know your motives for keeping my membership Josh. I have asked in a post on the feedback

The main thing I would note. I did point out that if someone lies to me I will trip them up. The thing is I pointed out in that thread a specific which stated that Sheep ranchers wanted terrier hunters to be allowed to hunt even though our illustrious complainer had stated unequivocally that sheep ranchers did not want terrier hunters on their property. Thus the truth from the article was highlighted and the originator had the choice to withdraw the claim. They haven't but continued the pretense.

Phantomuk called me scum the first day I was here and all that I had mentioned was that I fish.

Think how Steve felt to be classed as Phantie did him because Steve is asked to do terrier hunts by his neighbors in Ohio. Phantie is a great one for missing his own shortcomings and ignorance against other posters. There is little doubt that Phantie was spitting on Steve when he pulled that lurcher drug dealing villain stuff in describing terrier hunters.

Think how Steve felt to be classed as Phantie did him because Steve is asked to do terrier hunts by his neighbors in Ohio. Phantie is a great one for missing his own shortcomings and ignorance against other posters. There is little doubt that Phantie was spitting on Steve when he pulled that lurcher drug dealing villain stuff in describing terrier hunters.

The main thing I would note. I did point out that if someone lies to me I will trip them up. The thing is I pointed out in that thread a specific which stated that Sheep ranchers wanted terrier hunters to be allowed to hunt even though our illustrious complainer had stated unequivocally that sheep ranchers did not want terrier hunters on their property. Thus the truth from the article was highlighted and the originator had the choice to withdraw the claim. They haven't but continued the pretense.

And I pointed out that it was the man interviewed was a member of the FWP and not a farmer but a pack owner. It was his view not based on fact. He was not speaking in an official roll or spokes person for the welsh farmers.You chose to ignore it.

The FWP represents some 48 packs of hounds, these includes packs that are members of the MFHA, located within the Principality

phantomuk wrote:

Quote:

David Thomas, of the Federation of Welsh Packs, said farmers were being forced to take matters into their own hands now they could not rely on hunts to resolve lamb predation problems.

I guess you will have to look up who the Federation of Welsh Packs are. It is they who are saying the welsh farmers are up in arms not the welsh farmers

The whole idea of them (The Federation of Welsh Packs ) wanting to allow more than two dogs to flush fox is so they will have an excuse to take out the full pack of hunting hounds when hunting rather than 2. It is easy to claim you are off out to flush fox if you are out with the pack as it stands at the moment they are only allowed to use 2 hounds so making it hard to claim the are out for anything other than hunting if they are out with the full pack.

Last edited by phantomuk on Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Phantomuk called me scum the first day I was here and all that I had mentioned was that I fish.

Think how Steve felt to be classed as Phantie did him because Steve is asked to do terrier hunts by his neighbors in Ohio. Phantie is a great one for missing his own shortcomings and ignorance against other posters. There is little doubt that Phantie was spitting on Steve when he pulled that lurcher drug dealing villain stuff in describing terrier hunters.

And it is a well known fact that ENGLISH terrier men are criminals and drug dealers who are into illegal dog fights and illegal baiting and badger digging. Is he English? I even reminded you that you know nothing of the UK terrier men culture.

Phantomuk called me scum the first day I was here and all that I had mentioned was that I fish.

Think how Steve felt to be classed as Phantie did him because Steve is asked to do terrier hunts by his neighbors in Ohio. Phantie is a great one for missing his own shortcomings and ignorance against other posters. There is little doubt that Phantie was spitting on Steve when he pulled that lurcher drug dealing villain stuff in describing terrier hunters.

And it is a well known fact that ENGLISH terrier men are criminals and drug dealers who are into illegal dog fights and illegal baiting and badger digging. Is he English? I even reminded you that you know nothing of the UK terrier men culture.

Thank you for doing such an excellent job of pot calling kettle black.

Donnie and PhantomUK- You two have to stop. I don't give a rats ass about the specifics of your stupid argument over terriers, sheep, whatever. You both seem to piss each other off whenever you post and you both seem to take it personally. Stick to the issues, don't call each other liars and don't call each other scum.

Can you both just grow up a bit and try to be civil, even when you disagree?

Amy... you seem to be just jumping in and perpetuating the argument. Settle down. Sianblooz... you're just trying to inflame the situation. I'm willing to give long-time users who have been able to participate mostly well a little slack... not you.

If you see someone breaking the rules here, don't respond in kind, post it here in the feedback section. There is NO reason for people to be devolving these discussions into name calling (from either side).